Article: To Those Learning 3D

[Trident]

About initial article, - thanks. But, although I’m total newbie I’d rather disagree that drawing is absolutely necessary. Any visual art, 3D included is about drawing/sculpting/modelling what you really see,not what you think you see, and you just need to understand that and practice… Yes, drawing is very good exercise for that, but not the only.

I tried to learn 3D several times, have read ton of different manuals but “something” that puts it all together just eluded me and I gave up. Then couple of years or so ago I just rummaged through bookstores’ bargain bin and found there Fleming’s “3D Photorealism Toolkit” with hideously damaged cover (90% off) and bought it just because it was cheap and forgot about it. Then when I was looking for job and basically had nothing to do, i had read it. Wow! Never noticed before that all edges in RW are actually slightly rounded, never paid attention to how things reflect lights… Never understood that different tools in 3D are good for, although I knew that they do. I’m still not that great at 3D but now i’m comfortable with it, I really can do at least something, not just talk.

[Metsys]

Well, there are different motivations between designers, gallery artists, commercial artists, and whatever people think those terms mean. The fact is that they all require the same basic understand of something that is called the principles and elements of design. Someone who designes magazines knows these things. Someone who paints for self expression and has the opportunity to have their work displayed in a gallery knows these things. Someone who is an illustrator for hire knows these things. Someone who designs clothes knows these things. Someone who creates 3D characters and sets for Pixar knows these things.

I call them all artists in a general sense because their understanding of the principles and elements of design is something that they all share. It’s the fundamentals of what makes a good painting, a good illustration, a good outfit, a good magazine spread, and a good 3D scene.

[Trident]

@Fweeb

In that scenario, you still have the liberty to call yourself an artist because the work you’ve created is for yourself. The second you do work for someone else - building someone else’s vision - it ceases to be your art. That’s commercial art. You become the tool that someone else wields to bring their idea to life. There’s nothing wrong or demeaning about that, I just feel it’s in a different class from work you create for yourself.

Are those programmers writinfg commercial soft different from those developing free software? Hey, not in a slightest way, they use same tools, same technique and produce both great programs and total crap You can brilliantly write a boring internet banking frontend exsaustively described by gazillion-page spec, and you can create crappy and buggy open-source Project Of Your Dream…

So True Art is not about your goal too… It’s about that extra “something” you will never read in a book…

[Bussman]

@Fweeb

And therein lies the rub. Just because I consider commercial art to more craft and less art, doesn’t mean that I think any less of commercial art. Comparing commercial art to fine art is like comparing apples to oranges. Yes, they’re both still fruit, but there are distinct differences.

In many ways, for me, fine art is about the process whereas commercial art is about the product.

It seems we are in agreement. What I don’t get is why Whatever insists on calling an apple a fruit but not bannanas or oranges.

For me it’s all about the process. I 'm an artist, I make art. The people who buy it are concerned about the product and use it for whatever purpose (advertising, decorating their house, communication, etc). For me, as an artist , it’s all about the making. I experience personnal growth even making the most mundane catalog covers and sometimes I get to sneak a “profound statement” under the radar in there somewhere. But it’s all about the journey for me, not the destination.

[Fweeb (Jason van Gumster)]

@Bussman

It seems we are in agreement.

Wow… there’s something you don’t see everyday: People on elysiun agreeing with each other ;).

I like the way Metsys describes it, too.

[paroneayea]

There’s something I’ve felt massively missing from this article, and even from this conversation. Perhaps it will help clarify things. There is a distinction between skill and talent.

The other night I sat down next to my girlfriend who was making some drawings. Unlike me, she is very precise. When she draws, she thinks about all the proportions.

I asked if I could borrow her notebook, and she said sure. I started making some sketches… I accidentally started to draw the nose too big, and was fairly amused by it, so I tried to incorporate it in the most interesting way possible. Likewise for the rest of the drawing; it was an experiment, a sense of amusement for me. I played with it as I went.

She thought for a second and said, “I wish I had talent.”

“What do you mean? You do.”

“No,” she explained, “I have skill. Skill is the ability to understand the techniques. I have that, and I’m a bit OCD with it.”

“Then what’s talent?”

“Kind of a spontaneous creativity, the ability to come up with new ideas, apply them, and play with them as you go.”

There’s the thing. Your article talks a lot about having to study shaded cubes before you can develop talent, but that’s not true… studying and creating shaded cubes will help you develop skill. Creatively playing with those skills and experimenting is the way you help turn creativity into talent.

[Trident]

Excellent point! Wish i could say this.

[Bussman]

If you don’t develop your skills you’ll only be able to take that talent a short distance.

An old teacher of mine use to say: Talent is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. Or something to that effect.

[paroneayea]

Well, yes. That is because talent is a measure of how brilliantly you can implement your skills. No surprise then that you can perform more talented things with more skills under your belt.

[Metsys]

“Kind of a spontaneous creativity, the ability to come up with new ideas, apply them, and play with them as you go.”

That just sounds like creativity to me, that is being able to come up with something new. If you want a dictionary definition of talent, here you go.

1. A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment. See Synonyms at ability.
   2.a. Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality.
   2.b. A person or group of people having such ability: The company makes good use of its talent.
   1: natural qualities or talents [syn: endowment, gift, natural endowment]
   2: a person who possesses unusual innate ability in some field or activity
   So, talent refers to a natural gift, ability, or quality. Talent is just the base for skill. Here’s the definition for skill.
2. Proficiency, facility, or dexterity that is acquired or developed through training or experience. See Synonyms at ability.
   2.a. An art, trade, or technique, particularly one requiring use of the hands or body.
   2.b. A developed talent or ability: writing skills.
   Coming up with creative ideas is different, and you are right, I didn’t talk about that. I consider myself a talented musician and composer but not a particularly creative one, which is why I’m pursuing graphic design and illustration at the moment. I’ve seen very creative stuff come out of people that don’t have a lot of talent or skill.

[whatever]

@Bussman

This is how I see it: You call yourself an artist. You start making art (for whatever reason: to make a statement, to get paid, because it’s fun). You put your art out there if you wish others to be exposed to your art or to collect your pay or again just because you think it’s fun. If it has any cultural impact or not is beyond the artist’s control. Maybe after a week or 100 years it will be recognised as Art with a capital A or Fine Art or whatever they decide to call it then. in the meantime it is just your art.

A yes, fine Art and art. Hmm, in dutch those have 2 different words for that, that’s probably where my confussion comes from. Bit weird that the language with the most different words uses the same word for being buzy doing things you find creative and being buzy doing things others find creative.

Btw. There is such a thing as estetic dentist. Braces are mainly to look good, not chew right. Plastic surgery is aestetic, silicon brests are not good for your health. But then again, those doctors also call themselfs artists.

As paroneayea says I did not discuss the difference between skills and talent. That’s because I agree with Metsys document that you need skill to show your talent. And it’s best to practice the skills in a clear way. Don’t practice all skills at once, but one at a time to keep it fun and to get a clear sight of your progress.
This ofcourse is just a method, modern management schools don’t agree with this method, they think it’s perfectly possible to manage projects that they have no clue about.
Some artists are like that, Jeff Koons does not create many of his objects himself. And Rembrandt did not paint all of his work himself.

So, in the case of blender or 3d it’s perfectly possible to be not the artist, but the skilled person, the craftsman, the one executing the vision of the artist. But that’s not what the document is about, it’s only what the title is about.

[dgebel]

Good basic article on why you need to learn your tools and study your subjects. I recently took a community centre course on drawing/cartooning/painting/etc and relearned a lot of stuff. Teacher was a professional cartoonist for awhile so it was fun to learn the significance of proportions that way! I actually managed to draw recognizable faces for the first time. So, like Glen said - take an art class! Just make sure there’s a good teacher (not just an artist) and its at the right level and topics for you (ask!).

Re: pencil first - absolutely. Even if its purely block diagrams to get started, the pencil is the fastest way for me to actually plan a picture than with using a computer - I’ve finally figured that out after twenty years. Experiments are different

By the way, I gotta point out one thing to reconsider in there.

Shadows in nature are usually the complement color of whatever the light source is. In other words, shadows are not black.
I don’t draw what is physically correct, I draw what I want to see.

With 3D software, the shadows are physically correct. Sometimes this is not desirable to make a scene fun to look at.

I think this needs to be slightly corrected.

Artists are usually taught to use the light source’s complementary colour for the shadow colour. You also basically said that the 3D software is physically correct, but not always artistically correct. So why does the software not render complementary colours then?

In answer to the teacher’s question: “what colour are shadows?”. Someone said black. Then someone said complementary.

His answer - neither. Shadows are actually… darker shades of the object’s colour lying within the shadow. Shadows are just absence of light. A red object in shadow will be a dark red object. Physically speaking (as shown by 3d software) there will be only object colours of Light-Colour + Object-Colour. Now, if there are other coloured objects nearby (just about always), then reflected light will add an object-coloured light upon it (if you use “radiance” calculations).

An aesthetically-pleasing composition however, will have a balanced colour scheme. Complementary colours are an excellent way to achieve that economically. You may even have a given object sitting on or near an object which happens to be complementary in colour, for a strong contrast. In which case the reflected light will be actually be complementary

Colour spaces are a whole 'nuther subject, which I don’t even pretend to get anywhere with.